The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-09-09
POWERS0FP POSTMASTERS
MR.. OBERLY DEFINES THE CIVIL,
SERVICE RULES.

A Difference in Political Beliefs and
Affiliations Does Not Legally Endan-
ger the Heads of Minor Incumbents
in the Cincinnati Post Ofice-The
Law Thoroughly Reviewed
WASHINGTON, Sept. S.-Acting President
Oberly, of the United States Civil Service
Commission, has written the following i'm
portant letter to Charles w. Rowland,
Chairman of the Civil Service Board of
Examiners for the Cincinnati post office,
constructing certain sections of the civil
service law and the rules relating to the
power of appointing officers to make re-
movals:
DEAR SrR-Yours of the Goth ult has been re-
ceived You say: Il have read your report on
the Philadelphia post Office case, and have noted
your conclusions thereon. In conversation with
the Postmaster to-day as to the power of re-
moval of carriers our attention is called to
page 21, where you name the limita-
tions upon the power of removal Are
may, without question, remove carriers
save for the causes enumerated by you? The
postmaster informs me that he has an opinion
of the Assistant United States District Attorney
here TO the effect that he can remove carriers
and clerks well, except for the causes named
in the civil service law as quoted by you on page
q of the Philadelphia report"
MAY BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE.
That every carrier and clerk in the Cincinnati
postoffice might be legally removed for cause is
a proposition on which you need no informa-
tion. 1t is therefore concluded that you wish to
know whether, in the opinion of the commits
sion, efficient carriers and clerks of good
character may be legally removed for partisan
reasons, because they do not agree in politics
with the Postmaster. The commission has here
tofore stated, and now repeats, that power of
removal is unrestricted, except that removal
may not be legally made for either one of the
following causes:
u Because the person in service has refused
to contribute to political fund or for a politi-
cal purpose.
2 Because the person has refused to render
political service.
g. Because the person has refused to permit
an appointing officer, or any other person in the
civil service to coerce his political action.
For any other cause any person in the civil
service may be removed legally, and person
illegally removed for any of the causes named,
cannot under any provision of the civil service
act demand restoration.
THE PENALTIES.
If then an appointing officer were to remove
one of his subordnates for any one of the rea-
sons mentioned among the inhibitions of re-
moval what penalty could be inflicted upon
him? Civil service rule "a provides that every
tbo Violation ton ct any aSt rsftDg of sections IL
assessments shall be good cause for the removal
of the officer guilty of the violation; and sec
ton fifteen of that act provides that ANY per-
son who shall be guilty of violating any pro-
vision of the four foregoing sections shall on
conviction thereof, be punished by fine not
exceeding s.. 900, or by Imprisonment for a term
not exceeding three years, or by such fine and
Imprisonment"
Ii the words -four foregoing sections refer
to the four sections next preceding the fifteenth
section an appointing officer might be punished
by both fine and imprisonment for removing a
afal hp ha6 ref tn tp
money to political fund or a political purpose.
But no penalty is prescribed by the act for
violation of either the second or third inhibition
upon removals; and an appointing officer might,
therefore, without fear of either fine or i'm
prisonment, violate the law by dismissing subor-
dinates because they have refused to render
political service or because they have refused to
permit an appointing officer or other person in
the civil service to coerce their political action.
HOW IT WOULD BE REMEDIED.
1t is to be presumed, however, that no ap-
pointing officer would willingly violate any pro-
vision of the law, but if because be could not
be punished criminally for violation an appoint
ing officer were to violate the removal inhibting
u remain in office. No officer
should be continued in the enforcement
of a law, any of the provisions of which he him
self may have wfully violated. In this view it
becomes important to determine whether a re-
moyal made for partisan reasons falls under the
lnhibtions that person in the public service
shall not be removed. First, because he has re-
fused TO render political service, or, second,
because he has refused to be coerced
IN his political action one of the eight funda-
mental provisions of the civil service rules
as prescribed by the civil service act is
that no person in the public service is for that
reason under any obligation to render any polti-
cal service, and that ne will not be removed or
otherwise prejudced for refusing to do so.
DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
Rule S provides that no question in any exam
nation or proceeding by or under the commits
sion or examiners, shall call for an expression
or disclosure of any political opinion or affiia-
tion, and il such opinion or affillation be known,
no discrimination shall be made by reason
thereof by the examiners, commission or APP
pointing power.
From! these provisions of the law and rules it
is concluded
|. That it Is unlawful to ask an applicant
Tor appointment, under the civil service law, to
diyulge his political opinions or affiliations,
3 That If an appointing officer ascertain in
any way what are the political opinions or affil
iatons of Iany applicant for appointment,
it is unlawful in him to therefore either
Giscnmnate in the applicant favor or against
hm that 1t is unlawful in an appointing officer
10 appoint an eligible for the reason that he is
or is not Democrat. or to refuse to appoint an
eligible for the reason that he is or is not a Re-
publican, and vice versa.
3. That il is unlawful to remove any person
from the public service for refusing TO render
MERIT THE TEST.
=, The law fairly construed is that entrance TO
The classified civil service shall be upon the
merit OF the applicant, without regard to his
ponucal opinions or affiliations and that CON
uhuance in service shall be upon the employees
merit, without regard to his political opinions
or ai1liations. Therefore an appointing officer
VINO appoints or refuses to appoint an appli-
cant because the applicant does or does not en-
iseitaln certain political opinions, violates the
officer
employe because the employe refuses to render
P9htlcal service in accordance with the wishes
Vi the appointing officer because he is not a
political partisan OF the appointing officer
alSo violates the law. Entertaining these views
te sne commission replies to your question by say
ppig tnat In the opinion of the commission the
Ioslnlaster at Cincinnati cannot lawfully re-
move any carrier or clerk for the reason that
.ne carrier or clerk belongs TO political party
10 which the Postmaster Is opposed, and that
ic az can lawfully remove no person from the
SSlassl1ed postal service at Cincinnati, except
r 10, some other cause than the employees politi'
eai opinions or affiliations.